Lloyd's refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back/ Update: Case Settled

[Annita]

It was testimony in the AEG-trial

93% of the "This Is It" tickets sold were refunded, Phillips said. "7-8% people elected to hold the tickets as souvenirs." Out of $75 million in sales, AEG kept more than $5 million, which Phillips said they gave back to MJ's estate. (ABC7) Phillips said AEG didn't refund 7 or 8% of ticket purchases for "This Is It" because the buyers opted to hold on to the tickets. He said the un-refunded ticket revenues totaled more than $5 million. He indicated the money was handed over to the estate. (AP)

 

[Tygger]

But as you said there's no evidence that Michael was getting Propofol at February. By all accounts he didn't ask Murray/Adams to become his doctors/for Propofol until March and Murray did not order stuff until late March/April. And Murray's police interview saying he gave Propofol for last 60 days puts his start of Propofol to late April.

As per the AEG civil trial, most do not administer propofol without lidocaine and the doctor did not order lidocaine until after he was hired by AEG in May. The negligent propofol administration most likely began in May.

Because i find it odd when there are some who change their opinion on the facts of a case depending on who is making the argument, for the aeg trial mj bears some responsibility for his death as he knew of the dangers and was warned aboaut them, but here the estate can successfully argue it was an accident and mj wasn't aware of the dangers.

Agreed however, I find it conflicting, not moot.

In this civil trial, Lloyds’ took the role of AEG. Both AEG and Lloyds’ claimed they were not aware Michael had any issues with substances regardless of all of the public discussions via media and Michael himself publicly stating such. The estate took the plaintiffs’ position in that they would not deny Michael had such issues. Those who praise the estate vilified the plaintiffs for the exact same stance.

I find it interesting that somehow it was proven Michael did not fabricate his answers on the insurance evaluation form only because the estate accepted the settlement. When it came to AEG’s possible liability, Michael was considered to have fabricated his evaluation form responses and I responded to those posts in the negative then.

According to some, there is only one reason the plaintiffs offered a settlement to AEG. AEG did not accept the plaintiffs’ settlement because it was believed by some that AEG's evidence was so strong against the plaintiffs’ case they did not need to settle. AEG’s evidence was Michael’s medical records that they used to portray Michael as a “secretive addict.” Again, the plaintiffs and the estate fought to keep Michael's medical records sealed despite how many times that is erroneously portrayed by some posters.

Now that the roles are reversed, the estate accepted the settlement because their case was so strong against Lloyds’ that Michael was one of many with known substance issues insured by Lloyds’. If it was mostly likely evident that Michael’s death was an accident due to “more information” and the fact the doctor was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (a crime of negligence), the estate should have rejected the settlement so they could deliver that full $17.5M to Michael’s beneficiaries that they represent and cure more than half of the production costs lost.

Regardless, I also saw this as a premiums trial, I was more interested in the AEG wrongful death trial, and I am glad it is done. The monies will go to Michael’s mother and children. Interesting that out of all of the trials concerning Michael’s passing, only the party with the “deepest pockets” was considered to have no accountability but, there are appeals pending so we shall see how that finally ends.

 

[ivy]

Agreed however, I find it conflicting, not moot.

would you be surprised if I say I don't quite agree with you?

In this civil trial, Lloyds’ took the role of AEG. Both AEG and Lloyds’ claimed they were not aware Michael had any issues with substances regardless of all of the public discussions via media and Michael himself publicly stating such.

"issues with substances" is too broad approach. AEG never denied their knowledge about the 93 issue, they claimed they were unaware of Propofol. Lloyds claimed they were unaware of both Propofol and 1993 issue. Lloyds even tried to blame MJ for not telling them about the 93 issue on the recent forms. It turns out (in the latest Estate response we learned) that Lloyds was the insurer of MJ's past tours and they were more than aware of the cancellations and the reasons for it as they processed those cancellations. So while whether anyone knew about Propofol or not is not known for sure, it was established that Lloyds lied about their knowledge of 1993. They did not need MJ to mention it to Slavit. Lloyds also insured MJ during History tour - after his public admittance of drug issues in 93. They also insured other musicians with known drug issues. So Lloyds wasn't truthful when they said if they knew drug issues they wouldn't insure MJ. Even their past history with MJ shows that's not true (given they insured MJ in 96/97).

The estate took the plaintiffs’ position in that they would not deny Michael had such issues. Those who praise the estate vilified the plaintiffs for the exact same stance.

I don't think anyone is denying the 93 issue but the praise and vilification you mention are in my opinion isn't related to that. As far as I'm concerned the only reason there was some anger towards Jackson lawyers is that they were willing to put partial responsibility on Michael. Panish in his opening statement mentioned there were 3 parties responsible including Michael and in the closing he assigned responsibility to Michael. That trial also had a verdict form that asked jurors to assign responsibility to Michael - which could have been a disaster. As it can be seen from the Estate's response they solely placed the blame on Murray and they settled before jurors could decide if MJ's death as accident or intentional/foreseeable by Michael.

so was I not happy that Jackson-AEG case included the possibility that the jurors can came back with assigning a percentage of responsibility on MJ? You bet. Am I glad that the we don't have to go through the risk of jurors deciding MJ's death was intentional/foreseeable by Michael? You bet.

According to some, there is only one reason the plaintiffs offered a settlement to AEG. AEG did not accept the plaintiffs’ settlement because it was believed by some that AEG's evidence was so strong against the plaintiffs’ case they did not need to settle. AEG’s evidence was Michael’s medical records that they used to portray Michael as a “secretive addict.” Now that the roles are reversed, the estate accepted the settlement because their case was so strong against Lloyds’ that Michael was one of many with known substance issues insured by Lloyds’. If it was mostly likely evident that Michael’s death was an accident due to “more information” and the fact the doctor was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (a crime of negligence), the estate should have rejected the settlement so they could deliver that full $17.5M to Michael’s beneficiaries that they represent and cure more than half of the production costs lost.

Generally speaking settlements are recommended by lawyers because you can never guess the outcome of a case. It is possible to lose a case even if you believe you have a strong case. There's no guarantees. I would imagine that KJ-AEG case probably taught you that.

Lloyds case always was and always is about money. It was all about if and how much Lloyds would pay. No one ever talked about truth and justice. So even if Estate might have a strong case (I'm not saying they did) a guaranteed payment through settlement might have been more preferred to going through a trial that includes MJ's medical records and determination of nature of death and risking a loss. In other words a partial payment might be preferred to going through trial and getting the full amount or even worse going through a sensitive trial but losing it. Some might even argue that not allowing MJ to be dragged through mud could worth getting less amount of payout. It's not like Estate is hurting for money.

I would not have any problem with Jacksons settling with the same logic - a guaranteed outcome is better than risking it. However it was Jacksons who claimed they are after truth and justice and still offered settlements. It was Jacksons who gave statements like they did not understand why AEG did not settle as the money would not even came out of their pocket. So the issue with Jacksons settlement offer was they turned it into an issue of money while they claimed it wasn't about money. I'm sorry but I personally do not understand the logic of simultaneously acting like "I want the truth to be known" and then saying "Give me money so that it stays private". Talk about conflicting statements. I would think that the if the goal is wanting the truth to be known or achieve justice you go through the case no matter what, no matter win or loss and you don't offer the party you blame a way to get out of it.

I know you'll be itching to reply back to me but let me state that this is not really a comparison of the cases thread or an excuse to make accusations about how people approached to them. Also plaintiffs in this case is Lloyds.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, you responded to my post fairly quickly so maybe you are itching more than I?

Seriously though, please call Michael’s issues what you prefer. You might want to review Gongaware and Phillips’ testimony regarding 1993 and any other time Michael’s issues were discussed publicly by the media, himself, and Gongaware’s friend, Dr. Finkelstein.

Yes, I know, AEG and Lloyds’ did not know about Michael’s use of propofol as a sleep aid. It was never proven that Michael was addicted to propofol and it was not necessary as it was the negligent administration of the drug that caused his passing.

The civil trial verdict did not absolve Michael of any responsibility in his own passing. Jurors interviewed after the trial did see Michael culpable in his own passing. Juror#27 stated he considered Michael 99% blameworthy for his own passing in comparison to Panish’s 20%. The estate seemed to be aware Michael’s death was an accident by a doctor who was convicted of negligence so all the more reason to stay the course and NOT accept the settlement.

Generally speaking settlements are recommended by lawyers because you can never guess the outcome of a case. It is possible to lose a case even if you believe you have a strong case. There's no guarantees. I would imagine that KJ-AEG case probably taught you that.

If you read the posts in the AEG civil trial, there was only ONE reason stated for the settlement offers according to most. I have already read those posts and responded to them at that time in the appropriate thread so no need to repeat the “money-hungry” Jackson theory to me here.

The only medical records that Lloyds’ would have access to are the ones the doctor retrieved for AEG for insurance purposes. There is no new medical evidence so any “mud dragging” has already been made public due to the judge not sealing the medical records in the AEG wrongful death suit.

I personally do not know the reason the estate chose to accept the settlement offered by Lloyds’ and will not speculate. The result is the monies will go where they should; Michael’s mother and children. Congratulations to them on this financial, legal success.

The comparisons of the responses are valid and it seems it has been discussed previously in this thread by other posters. I remember us discussing the lacking interest in this trial in the civil trial discussion as well. I find your comparison of Lloyds' as an insurance company initiating a civil suit based solely on monies to a mother who lost her son and children who lost their father initiating a wrongful death trial to be a bit off-centered.

 

[LastTear]

The civil trial verdict did not absolve Michael of any responsibility in his own passing. Jurors interviewed after the trial did see Michael culpable in his own passing. Juror#27 stated he considered Michael 99% blameworthy for his own passing in comparison to Panish’s 20%. The estate seemed to be aware Michael’s death was an accident by a doctor who was convicted of negligence so all the more reason to stay the course and NOT accept the settlement.

Only based on the pie chart shown in court of which Murray wasn't a factor. Juror#27 felt Michael was 50% responsible and Murray 50%.

 

[Soundmind]

After juror # 27 was told of Murray 17 deviations from standard of care Murray was 90% responsible .

 

[serendipity]

Again, the plaintiffs and the estate fought to keep Michael's medical records sealed despite how many times that is erroneously portrayed by some posters.

Again, the records would have become public during the trial, regardless if the judge sealed them initially. The plaintiffs knew that and yet, not only they proceeded with the trial, but on top of it fought for it to be televised, knowing perfectly well the medical docs will be the main point of the trial! These documents are public thanks to the plaintiffs, period!

If you read the posts in the AEG civil trial, there was only ONE reason stated for the settlement offers according to most.

Of course there is only one reason, what other reason is there? It's the one guaranteed way to get paid.

I find your comparison of Lloyds' as an insurance company initiating a civil suit based solely on monies to a mother who lost her son and children who lost their father initiating a wrongful death trial to be a bit off-centered.

As far as I'm concerned, Katherine's lawsuit was/is based solely on money. Their desperate attempts to get a settlement is just one of many proofs. The children did not initiate anything, they were not even asked if they wanted the lawsuit, according to Katherine herself.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, you responded to my post fairly quickly so maybe you are itching more than I?

I think the reason we can't get along is you never truly read what I wrote. I never commented about quickness to reply. I commented about the the act of replying in other words never letting something go. And also I saw your post when I came from work hence the quick reply.

The civil trial verdict did not absolve Michael of any responsibility in his own passing.

True and I never made such claim. I said I preferred not determining the percentage of responsibility to determining a responsibility for Michael. In other words the current verdict that did not come to the point of putting a % on Michael is more preferable to me than a verdict that would on record put a percentage on Michael. Similarly a settlement is more preferable than a trial that could have ended with a jury verdict that could meant MJ intended or foresee his own death. So to recap I know that the AEG verdict did not absolve Michael of any responsibility in his own passing, I'm just happy and prefer that a % of responsibility wasn't determined by jurors.

If you read the posts in the AEG civil trial, there was only ONE reason stated for the settlement offers according to most.

to be fair I think you need to admit that what people have said was based on the comments from lawyers. It was Jackson lawyers who made comments like they didn't understand why AEG did not settle as their insurance would pay. and it was AEG lawyers calling it an extortion. So both parties comments about settlement offers was all about money. It's not like Jackson lawyers gave statements like they wanted the trial to be over or to protect KJ and MJ's kids and even MJ from going through a trial. In comparison look to statements coming from Lloyds and Estate lawyers about this settlement and how happy they are that the case that was taking long time is over before the trial. None of them making statements about money. I guess what I'm trying to say is the statements that lawyers make play a role in shaping people's perceptions.

The only medical records that Lloyds’ would have access to are the ones the doctor retrieved for AEG for insurance purposes.

Not true as far as the trial goes. During discovery process they have been collecting information about MJ's past health records going back decades. For accident/not accident claim also included the issues of foreseeability and that made MJ's previous usage of Propofol and knowledge relevant issue.

There is no new medical evidence so any “mud dragging” has already been made public due to the judge not sealing the medical records in the AEG wrongful death suit.

well the "judge not sealing medical records in AEG trial" is a totally wrong statement. There was protective order before the trial but when a trial - any trial - happens everything introduced into evidence and/or mentioned during testimony becomes public record. The only way for her to seal the medical records would have been to to seal the entire trial meaning having a closed court trial with no media or public attending and sealing every document and transcript as well. Given the principles of US system - meaning public's right to information plus media requests and so on- sealing the trial or sealing medial records as you call it was impossible. So it's absolutely wrong to blame the judge for that. The situation is the medical records as well as every other piece of evidence (emails, depositions and so on) became public record when the case went to trial. Everyone knew it would happen.

I find your comparison of Lloyds' as an insurance company initiating a civil suit based solely on monies to a mother who lost her son and children who lost their father initiating a wrongful death trial to be a bit off-centered.

why could you and other posters can compare the two trials and I can't respond in a similar manner? If you think those are two things that shouldn't be compared why would you start and/or contribute to that comparison?

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, Soundmind, I understand however, the doctor was not a party to the AEG civil trial and he was correctly not listed by Panish on the pie chart. AEG was party to the trial and the pie chart correctly showed Michael and AEG’s responsibility in Michael’s passing from Panish’s perspective. You may have found the original post already. If not, here is Juror#27’s post.

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ckson-vs-AEG?p=3916012&viewfull=1#post3916012

Serendipity, repeating: the plaintiffs and the estate fought to keep the medical records sealed. Anything repeated other than that fact is simply yours and other’s view which will never change the fact.

Of course there is only one reason, what other reason is there? It's the one guaranteed way to get paid.

Thank you for proving my point.

I think the reason we can't get along is you never truly read what I wrote. I never commented about quickness to reply. I commented about the the act of replying in other words never letting something go. And also I saw your post when I came from work hence the quick reply.

You believe that is the reason? I know what “itching” means so no need to re-interpret it.

So to recap I know that the AEG verdict did not absolve Michael of any responsibility in his own passing, I'm just happy and prefer that a % of responsibility wasn't determined by jurors.

According Juror#27, the percentage would be 1% responsibility for AEG so not much financial liability for them which they would probably accept but, yes, horrible for Michael as it currently is.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the statements that lawyers make play a role in shaping people's perceptions.

That is your view and you are entitled to it; I personally do not share it because I read the pre-trial posts. Before those lawyers made those public comments, many had already subscribed to the “money-hungry” Jackson theory for whatever their reasons. The lawyers’ comments were often re-interpreted to support such perceptions.

Not true as far as the trial goes. During discovery process they have been collecting information about MJ's past health records going back decades. For accident/not accident claim also included the issues of foreseeability and that made MJ's previous usage of Propofol and knowledge relevant issue.

Interesting. Had this went to trial, the estate lawyers could have used the same argument the plaintiffs did in that it cannot be proven that Michael was somehow addicted to propofol despite being characterized as an addict. Using the medical records Lloyds’ received from the doctor as per AEG, Lloyds’ could have then adopted the “secretive addict” theory which was successful for the defense. Provided Lloyds’ had medical records going decades before the records used by AEG; those records may not have been quite as useful and may not have been admitted into evidence.

Given the principles of US system - meaning public's right to information plus media requests and so on- sealing the trial or sealing medial records as you call it was impossible. So it's absolutely wrong to blame the judge for that. The situation is the medical records as well as every other piece of evidence (emails, depositions and so on) became public record when the case went to trial. Everyone knew it would happen.

Interesting as well. The judge made the ruling so she should be credited, correct? It seems Panish and the estate gave a valiant effort to seal those medical records while Putnam’s gave a valiant effort to seal those AEG emails knowing each would have no chance of success.

why could you and other posters can compare the two trials and I can't respond in a similar manner? If you think those are two things that shouldn't be compared why would you start and/or contribute to that comparison?

You are free to compare them the same way I am free to disagree! Your second to last sentence in you previous post read similar to a warning that I should not create a diversion when I was actually joining a discussion already in progress.

Again, I am glad the case is settled as it guaranteed monies go directly to whom it belonged, Michael's beneficiaries.

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, Soundmind, I understand however, the doctor was not a party to the AEG civil trial and he was correctly not listed by Panish on the pie chart. AEG was party to the trial and the pie chart correctly showed Michael and AEG’s responsibility in Michael’s passing from Panish’s perspective. You may have found the original post already. If not, here is Juror#27’s

Again, I am glad the case is settled as it guaranteed monies go directly to whom it belonged, Michael's beneficiaries.

Just to keep it in context here is the complete quote from juror#27

I was never convinced that AEG's actions in any way caused Murray to give MJ propofol. If AEG had known what Murray was doing they would have shut everything down in a heartbeat.

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.


The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I'd put Murray at around 90%.

But you are correct in this case where the man actually responsible for Michael's death was excluded the juror would put Michael at 99%, and would have do so because the Plantiffs did not prove their case.

Honestly, I read some posts and one would think that AEG were the only party who told the world that Michael was an addict. Who gave them that information?

Tygger, I completely agree with your last sentence.

 

[serendipity]

Serendipity, repeating: the plaintiffs and the estate fought to keep the medical records sealed. Anything repeated other than that fact is simply yours and other’s view which will never change the fact.

Tygger, where did I deny the plaintiffs asking the docs to be sealed?? Them asking was in reality POINTLESS, because during the trial the docs were going to be put out there. FACT! How was the judge going to keep a main matter in the trial sealed? The Jacksons "fighting" for the docs to be sealed was in complete contradiction with them wanting the trial televised! Nothing I said was my view, it was all facts, even if you don't want to admit it.

Jacksons filed the lawsuit allowing MJ's private medical docs to become public - FACT!

 

[elusive moonwalker]

If the jacksons gave a dam about mjs privacy they would never have filed the lawsuit in the first place.never ran to the press talking crap about him every chance they got while spreading their "tight nit" b s. they would have gone after murray but as we know with the jacksons they are very willing to throw mj under the bus for the good of the rest of the family .very willing to call him a d.a inorder to make themselves look like the "normal"ones rather than admit the real reasons mj cut ties from them. we should expect nothing less from a family who sold stories about mj to the press when he refused their back handed biz deals in order to get back at him.

 

[Justthefacts]

I am of the opinion that we have not seen all or how low some and the family will go for cash. Mark my words we will be rolling our eyes again

 

[Bubs]

I am of the opinion that we have not seen all or how low some and the family will go for cash. Mark my words we will be rolling our eyes again

Yes, its always quiet before the storm. When and what happens, I just hope, kids are not in the center of their next money grab.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Do you seriously expect a layman to make that kind of disclosure when filling out a questionnaire of this nature? since when does the notion of taking out propofol constitute "drug abuse"? if i ask you whether you take drugs, what will be the first thing that comes into your mind? your meds or heroin? most laymen when they speak of drugs they think of heroin and cocaine. they don't think of meds or anesthesia substance. so it's a bit of a stretch to expect MJ, who was not a medical expert, to think differently. beside MJ filled out that questionnaire way before he was using propofol to cure his sleeping problems. so technically he did not withhold any information.

Of course it's blindingly obvious you give full disclosure on these insurance forms, otherwise it gives ins companies the opportunity to void the policy when you try to make a claim as lloyds tried to do here. I'm assuming Mj was perfectly open about his scalp surgery and painkiller regimen in 93 to lloyds, otherwise there wd have been no dr forecast sent on tour with him. As in this case, it's ridiculous to say mj wasn't under an obligation to disclose the propofol - of course it was 'abuse', it was being used in an entirely untested manner in a bedroom for purposes it wasn't intended for. And my point which you're ignoring, is that it is irrelevant that mj wasn't using propofol when he signed this contract in april, are you suggesting that his obligation to let an ins company know that he has taken up an incredibly risky behaviour suddenly stops at the point of signature? The contract makes clear that mj is expected to declare any preexisting medical conditions (in this case it wd be chronic insomnia) and the validity of the contract depends on the declarations made in the contract not materially changing.

Please go back and read their complaint. one of their claims/arguments is that MJ kept information about his drug use. and had they known about it, they would not have offered him that policy. it was the estate that countered that claim with proof that such information was immaterial as it would have had little impact on their decision since they've covered MJ before in the past knowing very well of his conditions. also, Lloyd had covered several other artists (e.g Areosmith) in the past even though they've publicly admitted to abusing drugs. worse Lloyd had no evidence that MJ was abusing drugs other than tabloids reports, which are not admissible evidence in the court of law because they represent hearsay.

In short their case had a lot of holes which the estate demonstrated in compelling fashion in their reply brief opposing lloyd motion for summary judgement.

Lloyd was simply acting in bad faith by refusing to pay out MJ estate.

I think it's you that needs to look back at their complaint. Lloyds were claiming that they should have had knowledge of what mj died of - the prop and benzos etc, not just the painkillers that mj had on and off since 93. And they don't need to depend on tabloid reports, they've got an autopsy report to know what mj was taking before his death. Non-disclosure affects a policy. I can't believe that we don't all have experience dealing with insurance companies - this is 101 stuff. You have to give full disclosure otherwise it's often used as an excuse to void a policy, this is made clear in the mj contract. It's just basic commonsense that when there is a death resulting from a type of medical experiment of being put into a coma every night for months by a doctor using no monitoring equipment - a situation described by doctors in the murray trial as equivalent to having a baby on a kitchentop surrounded by knives, that it is going to be extremely hard to get an ins company to pay out when that ins company despite asking for full disclosure on all sorts of medical issues in the contract, was completely in the dark that this was happening. But if you seriously think that a few arguments about aerosmith being insured and some case with unsimilar facts allowing a heroin death to be seen as an accident, means that lloyds just rolled over and paid out, then i think we'll just have to agree to differ.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

AEG never denied their knowledge about the 93 issue, they claimed they were unaware of Propofol. Lloyds claimed they were unaware of both Propofol and 1993 issue. Lloyds even tried to blame MJ for not telling them about the 93 issue on the recent forms. It turns out (in the latest Estate response we learned) that Lloyds was the insurer of MJ's past tours and they were more than aware of the cancellations and the reasons for it as they processed those cancellations. So while whether anyone knew about Propofol or not is not known for sure, it was established that Lloyds lied about their knowledge of 1993. They did not need MJ to mention it to Slavit. Lloyds also insured MJ during History tour - after his public admittance of drug issues in 93. They also insured other musicians with known drug issues. So Lloyds wasn't truthful when they said if they knew drug issues they wouldn't insure MJ. Even their past history with MJ shows that's not true (given they insured MJ in 96/97).

Why are you saying lloyds is not being truthful when they say they wouldn't insure mj if they knew of his drug issues? I would have thought it perfectly clear from the list of things that they felt mj didn't disclose to them, the most important issue was propofol. Do you really think they wd be insuring all these other musicians if they were all declaring they'd be having a cocktail of propofol and benzos everynight in their bedroom to help them sleep? Also why accuse lloyds of lying about their knowledge of mj's drug problem in 93? Where did they say they didn't know about it, as far as i know it was just down as part of a list of issues that mj didn't disclose to them which they felt he shd have done, they weren't claiming that they didn't know about it, were they?

And actually aeg did try and claim ignorance of '93, randy phillips said he didn't recall mj declaring he had to go to rehab.

 

[Soundmind]

As of February , MJ was not taking propofol or at least we have seen absolutely no evidence to support that . So MJ did not disclose to them propofol because he was not even taking it . They can't say he did not tell us; he lied to us when there was no evidence he was even taking it at that time. It is that simple , he did not lie .

 

[LastTear]

You can't really blame Lloyd's for digging their heels in when Michaels own family were all over the media making claims that Michael was an addict.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

As of February , MJ was not taking propofol or at least we have seen absolutely no evidence to support that . So MJ did not disclose to them propofol because he was not even taking it . They can't say he did not tell us; he lied to us when there was no evidence he was even taking it at that time. It is that simple , he did not lie .

Was that meant for me? I totally agree, soundmind, about that, both in this case and in the aeg case where as far as i can remember certain posters were making out that mj was addicted from april onwards, desperately asking nurse lee for prop on murray's day off. Here, i'm not saying mj was lying when the contract was drawn up, and i don't know if lloyds are either. It's a recognition that the insurance policy is only effective if the declarations within it remain the same. They clearly didn't, mj began taking propofol/benzos after the contract was signed for his insomnia, a procedure which lloyds say is therefore not covered under their contract. What happens after an insurance contract is signed isn't suddenly irrelevant and anything you do is automatically covered, insurance doesn't work like that.

 

[Soundmind]

They did state that MJ lied to them, did not tell them he was taking propofol , did not tell them he had glaucoma lol ...etc , that's why they did not want to pay. They accused MJ of lying to them in February which was not true

 

[Bonnie Blue]

They did state that MJ lied to them, did not tell them he was taking propofol , did not tell them he had glaucoma lol ...etc , that's why they did not want to pay. They accused MJ of lying to them in February which was not true

Oh ok, i guess i have a different interpretation. I'm going by what ivy posted when she discussed their complaint. They call it 'withholding' info which i think is less accusatory. It can cover things which you can't really lie about, as it's something that will happen in the future. And this isn't somehow anti-mj - i can assure you every single insurance company does this to every single person making a claim.

Lloyds main argument is that Michael withheld his medical history (prescription drug use of Demerol, Opiates and Propofol and medical conditions of insomnia and failing eyesight and not mentioning going to rehab mid Dangerous tour) from them. They claim if they knew they would never insure Michael for accident and also this withholding voids the insurance policy.

 

[ivy]

Oh ok, i guess i have a different interpretation. I'm going by what ivy posted when she discussed their complaint. They call it 'withholding' info which i think is less accusatory. It can cover things which you can't really lie about, as it's something that will happen in the future. And this isn't somehow anti-mj - i can assure you every single insurance company does this to every single person making a claim.

actually Lloyds complaint made a fraud claim against MJ - meaning intentionally lying. "withholding information" can sound nicer but it's not about stuff that can happen in the future and Lloyds did not mean it in a nice way. They were talking about misrepresentations, lying and so on.

if you back to the very first post on the first page

Lloyd's of London has gone to court ... asking a judge to let the company off the financial hook, claiming it doesn't owe the Michael Jackson Estate $17.5 million on grounds MJ was a fraud.

"AEG and/or Jackson, knew but did not disclose that Jackson was taking prescription drugs and/or drugs prior to and at the time of his death, including Propofol," the court docs state.

They argue that the form has misrepresentation as none of the prescription drugs MJ was taking was listed and it said MJ only saw a dermatologist since 2005.
- Lloyd's claim that MJ's medical history and "apparent prescription drug use and/or drug addiction" wasn't told to the underwriters.

Why are you saying lloyds is not being truthful when they say they wouldn't insure mj if they knew of his drug issues?

Because they continued to insure MJ during History tour even though they knew his issues during Dangerous tour. Because they insure and insured people like Aerosmith, Whitney Houston etc that publicly admitted to drug issues.

I would have thought it perfectly clear from the list of things that they felt mj didn't disclose to them, the most important issue was propofol. Do you really think they wd be insuring all these other musicians if they were all declaring they'd be having a cocktail of propofol and benzos everynight in their bedroom to help them sleep?

they never identified a "most important" issue. They listed not only Propofol but also benzos and demerol and even MJ's eye problems.

and to your second question : they have insured musicians that did cocaine, heroine and so on. which one is more risky? a doctor administered anesthesia or a individual doing recreational drugs? I don't know. But logically I wouldn't have expect them to insure people who are doing recreational drugs but they did. So who knows whether or not they would insured a doctor administered prescription drug or not.

Also why accuse lloyds of lying about their knowledge of mj's drug problem in 93?

that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

 

[Tygger]

Just to keep it in context here is the complete quote from juror#27

I do not mean to be rude but, what did posting the whole comment from Juror#27 achieve?

But you are correct in this case where the man actually responsible for Michael's death was excluded the juror would put Michael at 99%, and would have do so because the Plantiffs did not prove their case.

It is the opposite. The jurors would only assign a percentage to Michael if they found AEG liable, i.e., the plaintiffs showed it was more than likely that AEG negligently hired, supervised, or retained the doctor.

Honestly, I read some posts and one would think that AEG were the only party who told the world that Michael was an addict. Who gave them that information?

Michael told the world he had an addiction. The issue was AEG and Lloyds’ suggested they were unaware of that confession and/or any media discussion regarding it which is a complete and utter fabrication on both of their parts.

Tygger, I completely agree with your last sentence.

I am sure you do. Again, I do not mean to be rude however, I doubt we share the spirit I stated that comment in.

These documents are public thanks to the plaintiffs, period!

Jacksons filed the lawsuit allowing MJ's private medical docs to become public - FACT!

The main point of the AEG civil trial was NOT the medical records. AEG made the decision to defend themselves against a negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claim by portraying Michael as a “secretive addict” using Michael’s medical records secured for them by the doctor who killed Michael. That is a FACT most ignore, preferring to "blame the Jacksons" instead.

Elusive Moonwalker, tsk, tsk. I will leave you to continuing to supporting Michael by expressing distaste for his family whenever and wherever possible.

 

[Soundmind]

The main point of the AEG civil trial was NOT the medical records. AEG made the decision to defend themselves against a negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claim by portraying Michael as a “secretive addict” using Michael’s medical records secured for them by the doctor who killed Michael. That is a FACT most ignore, preferring to "blame the Jacksons" instead.

It was his own family who started this whole "manipulative out of control drug addict". AEG only took advantage of The jacksons stupid strategy and added "secretive" . Randy Jackson and Metzger ( before he retracted his testimony when Jacksons strategy changed) tried very hard to prove he was a hopeless case for decades and everyone should have known including AEG. It was essential to the Jacksons to make his issues very deep , very serious and KNOWN .

 

[Justthefacts]

They did need an explanation as to why they knew nothing about him. And it could not be there fault.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

I do not mean to be rude but, what did posting the whole comment from Juror#27 achieve?

Context was achieved. If you feel it was worthless then that's fair enough, it didn't take up much space.

It is the opposite. The jurors would only assign a percentage to Michael if they found AEG liable, i.e., the plaintiffs showed it was more than likely that AEG negligently hired, supervised, or retained the doctor.

Yup, fair enough. The jurors answer was a hypothetical one anyone - as the Plantiffs did not prove their case.

Michael told the world he had an addiction. The issue was AEG and Lloyds’ suggested they were unaware of that confession and/or any media discussion regarding it which is a complete and utter fabrication on both of their parts.

Yes, for which he sought treatment. My point being is that as the family, plus others were all over the media giving interviews on Michaels drug addiction it is hardly surprising that Lloyd's (or AEG) would use that information to help their case.

I am sure you do. Again, I do not mean to be rude however, I doubt we share the spirit I stated that comment in.

That one was rude and wholly unnecessary. I'm at a loss to figure out what other spirit could be sought from being pleased this was settled.

 

[serendipity]

Michael told the world he had an addiction. The issue was AEG and Lloyds’ suggested they were unaware of that confession and/or any media discussion regarding it which is a complete and utter fabrication on both of their parts.

Maybe they don't watch the news like his momma? She was also unaware of it LOL

The main point of the AEG civil trial was NOT the medical records. AEG made the decision to defend themselves against a negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claim by portraying Michael as a “secretive addict” using Michael’s medical records secured for them by the doctor who killed Michael. That is a FACT most ignore, preferring to "blame the Jacksons" instead.

Tygger, MJ's medical history WAS a big point in the trial. And the Jacksons knew it was going to be because they brought it up - they basically try to claim he was a KNOWN addict and AEG should have known. How was that going to remain somehow sealed or not discussed at trial when BOTH sides had a bunch of experts and doctors to testify? A trial the plaintiffs wanted televised?

Known addict or secretive addict - ain't much difference there, it's still an addict. AEG's defense was a reaction to Jacksons action to sue them. AEG had the right to defend themselves and it worked for them.

It was the Jacksons who started it all - they filed the lawsuit and they brought up the drug addict talk (hell they started it right after MJ died all over the media!).

 

[Bonnie Blue]

actually Lloyds complaint made a fraud claim against MJ - meaning intentionally lying. "withholding information" can sound nicer but it's not about stuff that can happen in the future and Lloyds did not mean it in a nice way. They were talking about misrepresentations, lying and so on.

if you back to the very first post on the first page

Lloyd's of London has gone to court ... asking a judge to let the company off the financial hook, claiming it doesn't owe the Michael Jackson Estate $17.5 million on grounds MJ was a fraud.

"AEG and/or Jackson, knew but did not disclose that Jackson was taking prescription drugs and/or drugs prior to and at the time of his death, including Propofol," the court docs state.

They argue that the form has misrepresentation as none of the prescription drugs MJ was taking was listed and it said MJ only saw a dermatologist since 2005.
- Lloyd's claim that MJ's medical history and "apparent prescription drug use and/or drug addiction" wasn't told to the underwriters.

So what's the problem here with lloyds? They're right - mj didn't tell them about his medical history with pres drugs or tell them about his problem with insomnia and the treatment he was having for it. It's a fact Mj died of prop/benzos taken to alleviate his insomnia, it's a fact that this wasn't disclosed to the insurers before or after signature of the contract. Are lloyds not allowed to bring up this non-disclosure or something, are they meant to just roll over and pay out $millions, and is it really an issue if they bring it up in a nice or not nice way? Why were posters so eager to make excuses for aeg having to trash mj's rep to defend themselves in a case, but get all snippy about lloyds bringing up the undisputed fact that mj died of a sleep treatment that hadnt been disclosed to them?

and to your second question : they have insured musicians that did cocaine, heroine and so on. which one is more risky? a doctor administered anesthesia or a individual doing recreational drugs? I don't know. But logically I wouldn't have expect them to insure people who are doing recreational drugs but they did. So who knows whether or not they would insured a doctor administered prescription drug or not.

You seriously think that an insurance policy that goes into detail about the crane on the o2 stage to make sure it's safe for mj to use, and has a clause preventing mj from doing meet and greets in case he catches a cold, is going to just blithely insure mj's use of propofol every night to help him sleep with murray doing his makeshift drip routine?? There's a reason why lloyds of london has been around for 100s of years. And so what if some illegal drug taking artist gets insurance, they'll have exactly the same obstacles to face in getting a payout if they die of a drug related death and have specifically failed to disclose their drug issues in their policy.

 

[passy001]

So what's the problem here with lloyds? They're right - mj didn't tell them about his medical history with pres drugs or tell them about his problem with insomnia and the treatment he was having for it. It's a fact Mj died of prop/benzos taken to alleviate his insomnia, it's a fact that this wasn't disclosed to the insurers before or after signature of the contract. Are lloyds not allowed to bring up this non-disclosure or something, are they meant to just roll over and pay out $millions, and is it really an issue if they bring it up in a nice or not nice way? Why were posters so eager to make excuses for aeg having to trash mj's rep to defend themselves in a case, but get all snippy about lloyds bringing up the undisputed fact that mj died of a sleep treatment that hadnt been disclosed to them?

Did MJ understand that he was being asked about his prescription drugs? or did he understand that he was being asked about illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroine? the word drug is an ambiguous term. on one hand it refers to medication while on the other hand it also refers to illegal substance such as heroine. so which one was it that aeg was asking for? and did MJ understand what aeg was asking for? aeg had the burden to prove that MJ understood perfectly what aeg was asking for and as a result he purposely withheld that information. aeg had no chance there.

By the way MJ started having insomnia issues way after submitting the medical form. it was around April 2009that his insomnia problems started developing. but signed the medical form in february 2009.

You seriously think that an insurance policy that goes into detail about the crane on the o2 stage to make sure it's safe for mj to use, and has a clause preventing mj from doing meet and greets in case he catches a cold, is going to just blithely insure mj's use of propofol every night to help him sleep with murray doing his makeshift drip routine?? There's a reason why lloyds of london has been around for 100s of years. And so what if some illegal drug taking artist gets insurance, they'll have exactly the same obstacles to face in getting a payout if they die of a drug related death and have specifically failed to disclose their drug issues in their policy.

lloyd knew about those artists taking drugs and yet claimed they would not insure such artists. in other words they were lying.

Again MJ did not use propofol until after submitting the insurance form. so those points you are raising are moot. Lloyd lied about not knowing about MJ drug use of 1993. they were one of the insurers in 1993. and guess what in 1997 they also insured MJ for his history tour. lloyd was just sour grapes. they did not want to pay out the policy and as it turned out they did after the estate caught them their pants down.

 

[qbee]

They settled amicably so what is the point of debating and arguing past that _ Just for the sake of arguing?? It's over for them... Michael's Children reap the benefits of the policy, so their is no reason for us to be stressed further IMO